Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Democrats Finally Seem to Accept the Truth About Specter

When the opportunistic Specter switched parties, Democrats cheered the move -- even though a few dissenting voices questioned whether his decision would advance the party's interests. Yesterday, Senate Democrats denied Specter seniority and relegated him to junior status on the Senate Appropriations and Judiciary Committees. The Democrats might revisit the matter after the midterm elections in 2010.

Specter recently caused a flap when he implicitly supported Republican Norm Coleman's exhaustive efforts to contest the extremely close Minnesota Senate race. During an interview with the New York Times, Specter was asked to comment on the fact that his decision to become a Democrat means that "there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate." In response, Specter said: "There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner." Many liberal blogs went into a complete lather. Specter has since stated that he "misspoke."

Specter also caused a near-meltdown during an interview with Meet the Press in which he twice denied ever saying that he would be a "loyal Democrat." He then proceeded to state his disagreement with key components of health reform supported by many Democrats.

Looks like the shiny moment of his defection has worn off already.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is still time for change we can believe in...

1. We need to punish those who committed torture, even if it takes us right to the top.

2. corporate lobbying has to stop. public finance must be adopted. to pay for the funds we should introduce a 1% profit tax from corporations.

3. america needs a third party based on science, reason, and freedom

4. people can't misspeak. that is just a stupid way of not telling the truth.

5. anonymous sourcing should be banned from all news sources.

6. Anyone who works for Goldman Sachs should be barred from working for the government.

Anonymous said...

America needs a third party based on science, reason, and freedom and when we get it it will quickly become as screwed up, and self serving as the other two.

Andrew said...

Anonymous (#1),

2) Why would either the Republicans or the Democrats agree to public financing of a third party?
3) Who should define "science, reason, and freedom"?
4) People are legally allowed to state things by accident. I think you're referring to politicians' predilection for claiming that they "misspoke" when shown an earlier, embarrassing quotation. This seems to be a permanent habit of theirs.
5) Anonymous sourcing, while sometimes vexing, is necessary in investigative journalism. You are either arguing (a) that the government should have the right to force journalists to reveal their sources, or (b) that the government should have the right to censor publication of articles whose sources are not published.

I'm not sure if your statements are ill-informed or just facetious.

-Andrew

Anonymous said...

Why should i be forced to pay for political speech that i disagree with. This is inescapable in any public financing scheme.

But if you really want public financing of political campaigns, how about instead of adding on another percentage point to corp tax rates, everyone that is for public financing gets a special tax assessment of X percent and is also barred from contributing to any pac, party, 503c etc etc. So what rate do you wish to be taxed at?

junyo said...

"anonymous sourcing should be banned from all news sources."

So in other words you're pro-reprisal.

RIchard said...

A great rule of thumb is whenever you hear the word "public" replace it with "government". Thus public schools become government schools, public land becomes government land. And public financing becomes government financing.

Anonymous said...

Specter left a party that is intolerant of dissent for a party that abhors dissent.

megapotamus said...

I think with the banning of anonymous sources you are making rumours illegal. I'm not sure what science or reason that would be based on but I think you will find the only criminalizing of gossip in history is under Ceasarian type gubs of one stripe or another. That is not back to the future that is back to the cave. And no one has been tortured yet in the GWOT. This is a national disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1, point #1. If anyone, by omission of information, stands to cause your death, I'll be sure to extract the information that will save you life, by giving them the complete Spanish Inquisition, pointy pillows, comfy chairs, the works. Okay?

Anonymous said...

anonymous sourcing has the exact same credibility as anonymous blog commenting.

timewaster said...

5. anonymous sourcing should be banned from all news sources.This from some one who chose "anonymous" as his nic.

Too Funny.

As far as Specter, he's a lying, unprincipled, opportunistic schmuck so it's no mystery why he sees himself as a Democrat, he feels right at home.

jr565 said...

Wait, Why is Specter not being accepted by the Dems? Don't they have a big tent party? Have they moved so far to the left that centrists no longer need apply?
Conservatives for the longest have been decrying the squishes in their midst and saying they lacked both spine and principle and could not be trusted to not udnermine the party's message. And people like David Frum and dems in general trying to get out their talking points instead said that it was the fault of the far right conservatives to not be more accomdating.There should be room in the conservative tent for squishes.
Well dems,what about it? Why all the outrage about the squish coming into your midst? Shouldn't your party, being the big tent that it is be willing to accept centrists and squishes?
Or to put it another way, he's yours. Have a blast.And we better not hear any dissent from you about how unreliable he is as a democrat, since your party is, unlike the repubs, a big tent party, willing to accept all kinds of people and disparate views.Saying he is a squish as a democrat, would only make a lie out of your talking points and we can't have any of that.

Lance said...

And we better not hear any dissent from you about how unreliable he is as a democratSpecter will not be an unreliable Democrat. On the contrary, as events this week demonstrate, Specter will be the best Democrat ever. Here's why...

The Democrats might revisit the matter after the midterm elections in 2010.I've always thought Reid was kind of dense, but this is a master stroke. By revoking seniority, and then holding out a chance to regain it, Reid bought Specter's soul.

dreaming of justice said...

Spector deserves no better than to be relegated to junior status in the SenateI think that is what countryfolk call 'the chickens coming home- to roost'.

-just sayin'

Critical Thinker said...

Professor,

Ya'll can have Specter. He is nothing more than a political opportunist of the worst kind. If the communist party was in power, and it suited his political needs, I feel he would switch his allegiances over to their side just to maintain his survivability.

If there is going to be a Democratic primary, I hope he or she spanks Specter. I know I will be pulling for them. Good post as usual.

Anonymous said...

Put Pelosi in front of the senate under oath and find out why she paid for the "torture" first.

Then refer the rest of the iunvestigation to the senate ethics committee and like William Jeffersons National gaurd protected freezer cash..that will be the end of the story

Real Time Analytics